dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (09/17/85)
There has been in the past, both in this newgroup and in other forums, mention of a reference to statements by Duane Gish in which he alleged that there were proteins for which the human version was more similar to the corresponding protein of the bullfrog than to that of an ape. This is usually brought up in context of the implication that Gish is dishonest and/or incompetent. I am not interested in that question. What did interest me was the source of Gish's assertion. So I wrote to him and asked about it. No answer. Not wishing to jump to a conclusion, I wrote again, several months later. This time he responded, first with warm appreciation for the bug fixes to references in his book that I sent (note this, people: my letter was somewhat critical, but he received it gladly), and also with the explanation. I'm sure this will be of interest to a number of people. Gish attended a seminar on human origins at U California-Davis on March 5 and 6, 1977. One talk was by Garniss Curtis, who, not liking the date suggested by such studies for the man-ape split, wanted to derogate these sorts of investigations. He said, therefore, that serum albumins of the bullfrog and man were practically identical and so man was as close to the bullfrog as the ape. (I am paraphrasing Gish's reply because I do not want to quote personal correspondence.) Apparently an evolutionist wrote to Curtis about this and then he said that he heard it from another party and was only kidding anyway. Gish noted that when he discovered this it was with some surprise, for he did not feel that this was the intention at the time of the talk, nor does he get a different impression from listening again to the tape. Postscript for Bill Jefferys: I said in my mail message that Gish did not intend to use this information again. I note now on rereading that he still assumes the information is correct, just that Curtis won't stand behind it. This is a disappointment to me. I don't think the assertion should be made until some study is produced as at least preliminary verification. So I guess I'll write another letter. By the way, Gish's book will be coming out in a new edition in a month or two, and will be retitled _Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record_. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "A mind like cement: thoroughly mixed and permanently set" |
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (09/18/85)
Let me first thank Paul DuBois for his persistence in trying
to get Dr. Gish's side of the Bullfrog Blood Caper. I hope I
don't embarrass him by saying that his was a commendable effort
for which we should all be grateful. For completeness,
here is Dr. Curtis' recollection of the events (from
*[Creation/Evolution Newsletter 4(5):14*]
------------
*FROG INTO PRINCE: THE SOURCE OF GISH'S BULLFROG DATA REVEALED*
Letter from Garniss H. Curtis
Dept. of Geology and Geophysics
Univ. of California, Berkeley
Concerning *[C/E Newsletter 4(4):16]*, let me clarify the history
of a statement attributed to me about bullfrog blood protein being
similar to that of human blood. At the July 3 to July 12, 1971
Wenner-Gren symposium on the "Calibration of Hominoid Evolution,"
held at Burg Wartenstein, Austria, Dr. David Pilbeam, then at Yale,
gave a summary of biochemical dating methods. He discussed the
work of Sarich on immunological distance based on DNA hybridization,
haemoglobins, fibrinopeptides, transferrins and carbonic anhydrase,
pointing out that these methods show rather close agreement with
conventional taxonomy based on comparative anatomy. Someone during
the discussion, and I'm not sure who, pointed out that recent work
on blood proteins in Austria had shown some similarities between
human and bullfrog blood. This elicited some laughs, but I broke
in to say that, the work having been done in Austria, they should
take it seriously from another point of view entirely.
"It's obvious," I said soberly, "that this experiment was a tragic
mishap, possibly, even, something diabolical! I suspect that it was
a one in a million chance that they got these results on the first
bullfrog they pulled from the pont. I feel absolutely certain that
no one will reproduce them again!"
I recall how everybody looked at me in dumbfounded silence from
around the huge green-velvet topped table; so, after a long pause
I continued, "Consider where we are, the very heartland of fable
and fairy tales. Goblins, trolls, elves, fairies, vampires,
witches and sprites have been reported here for thousands of years.
Surely there must be some truth in these tales! Don't you see what
must have happened? It was clearly the fulfillment of a terrible
curse: had the experimenter only produced the right word or phrase
with the bullfrog in hand, a handsome prince would have emerged, and,
of course, for his liberation would have bestowed a king's ransom on
the experimenter (had it been a woman experimenter, the prince would
have married her on the spot); but instead, the curse was fulfilled;
the bullfrog's throat was cut; and now we have these damned data to
explain!"
That is essentially the story I told then and again to Duane Gish
some years later when he talked to me over the phone about dating
methods. As for the actual data, I have never seen them in print.
-------------
Comment: For Dr. Gish to rely so heavily on what is, after all,
at best a second-hand report of an offhand comment by an unknown
individual to work that no one can find in the literature, boggles
the mind. I too am disappointed that Gish won't drop it. Until
he does, he is likely to have the question raised over and over
again in debates.
--
Glend. I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hot. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you
do call for them? -- Henry IV Pt. I, III, i, 53
Bill Jefferys 8-%
Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail)
{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (UUCP)
bill@astro.UTEXAS.EDU. (Internet)